Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 29 September 2023 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 00:10, 29 September 2023 by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) (Fix Linter errors.)
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Data Design Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A video game company known for their extremely poor set of games that are usually under-rated (like 0.7/10, etc). The citation "it is possibly the longest established entertainment development company in the world" clearly needs a source. I don't know if that makes the company more notable or not. What else makes this company notable? /HeyMid (contributions) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They developed/published enough games to be notable for that. Almost all the games have articles. Sure it lacks history section and such, but that's future work. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There's no real reason to delete. This article just is a couple sources away... Nolelover 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasonable enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.